Would you do analog recording ?

[haunt]

Why did so many producers go digital in the 80s?

IDK. Maybe they were trend chasers trying to keep up with the joneses?
Why do so many producers (to this point in the 21st century) insist on autotune-heavy vocals?

Miroslav touched on it, I suspect the migration to digital was largely due to the editing potential; of what the word processor did for writers, with "movable text" and non-destructive editing...and those with strong aversion to analog cost, space requirements & maintenance. Technology trends have emphasized convenience over fidelity and integrity.

Digital recording, in all its glorified linearity, creates its own distortion. Tracking to digital may eliminate Wow & Flutter of heads & reels but replaces them with Jitter (which is annoyingly cumulative in multi-tracking takes and can wreck havoc on attempts at summing mixes). Then there's linear prediction within the algorithm used by the ADC...which sets arbitrary end points to signal sources that fall below a certain threshold. That isn't how sound behaves in acoustic spaces. Because low amplitude signals are otherwise audibly lost in the noise floor (via the principle of exponential decay) they still remain influential to harmonic content (distortion) of any other ambient noise that can be heard. One might be able to hear the signal source clearly in digital playback but it is not an accurate reproduction of what was heard in the acoustic space, tracked live.

My MPC60 and S950 both make drum loops (and most 1 shots from analog or digital sources) sound interesting, often better through coloration, that largely results from their nonlinear response and filtering, even distortion that occurs during AD conversion.

There is no medium free of distortion...and I've never heard musicians pining for such technology anyway. Someone so obsessed with the purest reproduction of sound should stick to listening through ultra-linear hifi gear as audiophiles, and leave creation to those less concerned with spec sheets and gear superiority complexes. Otherwise every step of the production process is going to be a maddening exercise in futility. It's a misnomer to think of digital recording technology as patently "better" just like it's equally misguided to think tape is "better". And that less distortion is "better". Not necessarily.

Imagine the evolution of modern music, if musicians had rigidly adhered to the manual's advice, from the earliest tweed Fender amps; only using them in a way to "minimize distortion" and achieve "the most linear response"
Imagine a world without tube distortion, transformer distortion, speaker distortion, mic distortion, tape distortion. Electric guitar would have likely gone the route of accordion...or harp. Even electric violin. No thanks.

 

[ecc83]

"Imagine a world without tube distortion, transformer distortion, speaker distortion, mic distortion, tape distortion. Electric guitar would have likely gone the route of accordion...or harp. Even electric violin"

Those are INSTRUMENTS and their support electronics not recording systems.
We are talking about recording. I say again R.E.C.O.R.D.I.N.G. sound (and its subsequent editing). Or is the concept too hard to grasp?

I am not anti-tape. I used to dub music to cassette using a top of range Sony Dolby S machine (but using Dolby B) to listen to in my old Proton because it is pre-ICE CD.
Since my trips these day rarely exceed 15mins I just listen to Radio3 on its impeccable (in a car!) 13 and 1/2 bit digital links.

Jitter? Straw clutching. Post some multi-passed "jittered" .wavs and their originals. Let's see if anyone can tell which is which?

Dave.

 

[Bobbsy]

Agreed - I was recording pure analogue for about 10 years before I went digital back in 1983.

So I am very well acquainted with analogue tape and all its foibles - I am well used to cutting and splicing tape to a high standard for broadcast.

But I found that analogue was just not good enough and I was always fighting against the limitations inherent in the system.

And it was so EXPENSIVE - I never reused tape, and with (even back in the 1980's) tape costing about £15 for an hour's recording it cost a huge amount of money (and £15 in 1980 is probably equivalent to about £150 in today's money).

But all the distortions and problems inherent with analogue tape recording meant that I went digital as soon as I could - back in 1983 when I bought my Sony PCM-F1 system - and was doing digital overdubs back then. "Music Week" even did a piece about me as I was the first to release an album digitally overdubbed in the UK (that's bouncing to and fro between two digital stereo recorders and an analogue mixer - yes, you get lots of DA and A/D conversions, but the noise floor still stays way below that of analogue tape and without the wow and flutter modulation noise, etc. inherent with analogue tape).

Hmmm...you have me thinking here.

I was in the lucky position of being able to get tape ends from work--but when I did have to buy my own I think I paid about the same as you. Putting this in perspective, my weekly rent on a one bedroom flat in Notting Hill was £25. Later on I bought an 8 track 1 inch machine (a Brennell...remember them?) and the six or eight one inch tapes I owned got re-used until they died.

Anyway, what I'm thinking about is how different the things I do are now. There's a huge difference in the projects I attempt now (with virtually unlimited tracks) and what I could do with a maximum of 8 tracks and a mix to two (or the quality losses and compromises involved in sub mixing). My first real brush with digital was when work purchased a "DAR Soundstation" for audio post on our programmes--suddenly having 16 digital tracks to play with was an eye opener and something I couldn't emulate at home until I discovered Cool Edit in the second half of the 90s. Now I'm doing things at home on a Lenovo laptop that would have astounded me at work 20 years ago.

None of this is arguing whether analogue or digital is better. Go with what you like and what gives you the results you want. Like it or loathe it...but digital recording on computers has been a massive game changer.

 

[miroslav]

I am not anti-tape. I used to dub music to cassette using a top of range Sony Dolby S machine (but using Dolby B) to listen to in my old Proton because it is pre-ICE CD.

So is that the sum total of your experiance recording with "tape" that drives your perspectives...?

Straw clutching.

Right.

 

[ecc83]

So is that the sum total of your experiance recording with "tape" that drives your perspectives...?



Right.

Well now. A couple of years ago, Son was talking about the tape sound he used to get from the A3440.

Now the machine is some 5mtrs away from the computer as the cable flies but a cunningly designed multicore allowed four tracks up and down. But, I only had 2 in 2 back from a 2496 and no spare PCI slot. Enter Thomanns with a cheap ESI 1010e.

You cannot even remember what has been written a day ago. Has all that ISPROPA fume addled your brain.


I have used A77s, B77s, Ferrograph series 7, Brennel. Fixed the logic transport board on a TRD for a guy some years ago. As I say, we have an A 3440 but I have not turned on in a six month.

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

OK...basic old school consumer hi-fi 2-track stuff...and the 3440...got it..

 

[Greg_L]

Miro, you were doing pretty good until you put the snob hat on.

 

[ecc83]

Miro, you were doing pretty good until you put the snob hat on.

Thanks Greg...And Tape's tape. It is all gamma bloody ferric oxide (sometimes with a dash of Cobalt).

Dave.

 

[miroslav]

Miro, you were doing pretty good until you put the snob hat on.

Naaa....It's got nothng to do with "snob".

Dave tossed out the "if I was the conductor of the LSO or Philly phil I would not let you within a country MILE of my orchestra......" crap.

He wanted to "call me out" with that...so all I'm doing is asking him what actual studio recording experince with studio grade tape decks he's done that's he's basing his views on?
It's a legit question.

 

[haunt]

"Imagine a world without tube distortion, transformer distortion, speaker distortion, mic distortion, tape distortion. Electric guitar would have likely gone the route of accordion...or harp. Even electric violin"

Those are INSTRUMENTS and their support electronics not recording systems.
We are talking about recording. I say again R.E.C.O.R.D.I.N.G. sound (and its subsequent editing). Or is the concept too hard to grasp?

I am not anti-tape. I used to dub music to cassette using a top of range Sony Dolby S machine (but using Dolby B) to listen to in my old Proton because it is pre-ICE CD.
Since my trips these day rarely exceed 15mins I just listen to Radio3 on its impeccable (in a car!) 13 and 1/2 bit digital links.

Jitter? Straw clutching. Post some multi-passed "jittered" .wavs and their originals. Let's see if anyone can tell which is which?

Dave.

See, I view everything as a potential instrument, recording system, art supplies. Just about any piece of functional electronics...can be adapted or modified for audio use in some capacity be it performance, tracking, reproduction. Everything has its sweetspot...especially gear intended for audio processing...and a curious mind with (enough) time will hone in and discover a use for it.
What I can't wrap my head around is how you suggest tape, mikes, speakers, transformers and tubes aren't common components in a recording system...but continue with an anecdote about recording to tape...after belittling me for no good reason.

It isn't my intent for you to take any of my philosophy and observations personally. We don't know each other, but as witnessed from your posts in this thread alone, you're quick to cling to numerous forms of fallacy as a crutch to reinforce your position.
Once again I cant emphasize this enough...there's no accounting for taste. Insisting there's a "right" and "best" catch-all way to do creative things is a strange position to adopt, but I'm not about to argue against another's preferred methods if it tickles their fancy. I'll only dismiss your premises if they're factually incorrect and lack self-awareness.
Disagreeing with my perspective is fine, but you've done well to make yourself look petty, even foolish. That little attempted dig re: conceptual struggles would be much more appropriate if internalized as self-critique.

 

[haunt]

Thanks Greg...And Tape's tape. It is all gamma bloody ferric oxide (sometimes with a dash of Cobalt).

Dave.

All tape is not created equal. Cassettes are not open reels...not DATs...1/4" full track isn't 1" half track isn't 2" 24 track.
Ampex formulas aren't BASF formulas aren't 3M formulas... Different response curves, headroom, noise floor.

Different tapes produce mixed results at different IPS speeds and -10dB machines don't sound like +4dB machines.

 

[Greg_L]

Naaa....It's got nothng to do with "snob".

Dave tossed out the "if I was the conductor of the LSO or Philly phil I would not let you within a country MILE of my orchestra......" crap.

He wanted to "call me out" with that...so all I'm doing is asking him what actual studio recording experince with studio grade tape decks he's done that's he's basing his views on?
It's a legit question.

That's what you always do. You call people out when you don't feel that they measure up to what you think an informed opinion is. Just let them think what they think. It's no big deal. You don't have to do that to make your point.

 

[Greg_L]

Thanks Greg...And Tape's tape. It is all gamma bloody ferric oxide (sometimes with a dash of Cobalt).

Dave.

Don't thank me. I'm not on your side.

 

[ecc83]

I am not "calling anybody out" I am not ten, nor is this the 1890's in Texas*.

No I have no experience of large, multitrack tape machines but as I said, tape is tape and no matter the quality of the machine it is subject to the same physical limitations.

I just downloaded a manual for a Studer A 80 and found it delivered a signal to noise ratio of 61dB unweighted and that at the horrendous distortion level, by todays standards, of 1% (would you buy a monitor with amps in them that gave 1%thd at full welly?)

Yes I KNOW! That noise performance is adequate for a single pass on virgin tape for many purposes (still about 10dB worse than the best vinyl. I like that even less than tape! Oooer! 'ark at 'er? Done it now!) but just one copy gives you ~3dB more noise and a bit more distortion.

I don't really care what you do M, nor what you do it with and I am sure your results are great. I just answer the point that digital recording (not fekking about with sounds) is far better, far easier and far cheaper.
*But! I am still a decent shot even tho' a limey!
Dave.

 

[ecc83]

Don't thank me. I'm not on your side.

First for you then Greg? Disinterested bystander!

Dave.

 

[Farview]

Miroslav touched on it, I suspect the migration to digital was largely due to the editing potential; of what the word processor did for writers, with "movable text" and non-destructive editing...and those with strong aversion to analog cost, space requirements & maintenance. Technology trends have emphasized convenience over fidelity and integrity.

This is probably true now, but in the 80's the digital was reel to reel and you couldn't (iirc) razor edit it. There was no real editing of that sort until the 90's (maybe late 80's)

 

[bouldersoundguy]

This is probably true now, but in the 80's the digital was reel to reel and you couldn't (iirc) razor edit it. There was no real editing of that sort until the 90's (maybe late 80's)

Sony DASH could be edited with a razor.

 

[Greg_L]

First for you then Greg? Disinterested bystander!

Dave.

Maybe. I have no dog in this fight. I just thought miro's tactic was lame. But in hindsight, it doesn't matter. It's not like any of you are doing anything worthwhile here.

 

[miroslav]

That's what you always do. You call people out when you don't feel that they measure up to what you think an informed opinion is. Just let them think what they think. It's no big deal. You don't have to do that to make your point.

Whatever....you wanna just dump it on me, fine, I'm use to it...but as I said (and you even quoted it)...it was Dave who threw down the snooty card and made it personal with his earlier comment.
I just returned the favor and also asked a very legit question...where is his knowledge/experience with tape recording coming from...?
The fact that Dave thinks "tape is tape"...and that any tape recorder is going to give you about the same quality results...pretty much answers my question and makes any further discussion of that subject with him....moot.

Now, when you say...

It's not like any of you are doing anything worthwhile here.

..that sure sounds snobby too.
If you said no one is doing anything worthwhile here, at least that would have been more valid than "any of you".

Anyway....I ain't looking to argue with you or with Dave.
My only point was, is and will be.....that saying digital makes audio sound "better" is 150% subjective and silly, because perception of audio quality is affected by the whole production process and not just tracking format.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

If you like what the analog tape does to your sound and you want that effect on everything all the time then it's a good thing. If you don't happen to want that effect on everything all the time then it's a bad thing.